Skip to main content

tv   Meet the Press  MSNBC  January 8, 2012 2:00pm-3:30pm EST

2:00 pm
if your car is totaled, we givyou the money for a car one model year newer. to learn more, visit us today. responsibility. what's your policy? this sunday, a special edition of "meet the press." live from new hampshire. the last debate before the first in the nation republican presidential primary. voting here is just 48 hours away. we come to the granite state where nearly one in five voters remains undecided, despite seeing these candidates face to face in town halls, coffee shops, and even in their living rooms. a small state that will have a big impact on the race. their motto, "live free or die." the issues, jobs and the economy. america's role in the world. and which of these candidates is best suited to take on president obama. this morning, a debate, in partnership with facebook, the
2:01 pm
world's number one social platform, and the "new hampshire union leader." the candidates, the issues, and your questions. and good morning and welcome to this special edition of "meet the press." the final debate before new hampshire voting begins. all six candidates are here, and before we begin, you know the drill, we quickly go through the rules. each candidate will have one minute, 60 seconds, to make their statement, to respond to questions, and at my discretion, 30 seconds for follow-up or rebuttal. we're on a pretty tight schedule, so i will ask the candidates to stay within their allotted time, and we'll see how
2:02 pm
that goes. we've partnered with facebook, so some of the questions will come from me, and some, of course, will come from you. we encourage you to weigh in on the debate in realtime. our online app at you can monitor the conversation there, and we'll see some of your feedback during that debate over the course of this debate. candidates, good morning. >> good morning. >> i just want to say on behalf of all americans that i thank you for being willing to debate each other, every ten hours, whether you feel you need it or not. this is an important moment. elections are about choices. they're about distinguishing one from the other. there is a political element to that, and, of course, it has to do with policy as well. governor romney has won the iowa caucuses. although narrowly. he's up in the polls here in new hampshire. he's also up in the polls down in south carolina. speaker gingrich, why shouldn't governor romney be the nominee of this party? what about his record concerns
2:03 pm
you most or makes him disqualified to be the nominee? >> well, i think what republicans have to ask is who's most likely in the long run to survive against the kind of billion-dollar campaign the obama team is going to run. and i think that a bold reagan conservative with a very strong economic plan is a lot more likely to succeed in that campaign than a relatively timid massachusetts moderate who even "the wall street journal" said had an economic plan so timid it resembled obama's. so i think you've got to look at massachusetts was fourth from the bottom in job creation under governor romney. we created 11 million jobs while i was speaker, and i worked with president reagan in the entire recovery of the 1980s. i just think there's a huge difference between a reagan conservative and somebody who comes out of the massachusetts culture with an essentially moderate record who i think will have a very hard time in a debate with president obama. >> speaker gingrich, bottom line you believe that governor romney is unelectable.
2:04 pm
>> i think he's unelect dbl -- look. i think against obama's record, i think, you know, the fact is possible's going to have a very hard re-election effort. but i do think the bigger the contrast, the bolder ideas, the clearer the choice, the harder it is for that billion dollar campaign to smear his way back into office. >> because this is your flyer that you're circulating here in new hampshire, it says very clearly romney is not electable. >> i think he'll have a very hard time getting elected. >> governor? >> david, i'm very proud of the record that i have. and i think the one thing you can't fool the people about new hampshire about is the record of a governor next door. and people have watched me over my term as governor and saw that i was a solid conservative and that i brought important change to massachusetts. they recognized that i cut taxes 19 times. balanced the budget every one of the four years i was governor. put in place a $2 billion fund by the time i'd gone. we'd seen job losses in the months leading up to my becoming the governor, and then we began to finally create jobs. by the way, we created more jobs in massachusetts than barack
2:05 pm
obama's created in the entire country. we also got our state police to enforce illegal immigration laws. put in place english immersion in our schools. i'm very proud of the conservative record i have, and i think that's why some of the leading conservatives in today's world who are fighting the conservative battles of today that don't have any ax to grind have gotten behind my campaign. governor nikki haley of south carolina. governor chris christie of new jersey. right here, the great senator of new hampshire, kelly ayotte looked at my record, looked at my plan to get this economy going. i happen to believe if we want to replace a lifetime politician like barack obama who had no experience leading anything, you have to choose someone who has not been a lifelong politician, who has not spent his entire career in washington, and instead has proven time and again he can lead in the private sector twice, in the olympics, and as a governor.
2:06 pm
we've got to nominate a leader if we're going to replace someone who is not a leader. >> senator santorum if you had not lost election in 2006 you would be in washington longer than you were. it would have been 21 years, so you've got a long washington record. how do you address this question? why shouldn't governor romney be the nominee? what is disqualifying in your judgment? >> well, if his record wu so great as governor of massachusetts, why didn't he run for re-election? if he didn't want to even stand before the people of massachusetts and run on your record, it was that great, why did you bail out? i mean, the bottom line is, you know, i go and fight the fight. if it was that important to the people of massachusetts that you were going to go and fight for them, at least you could stand up and make the battle that you did a good job. i did that. i ran for re-election a couple of times and i won a couple of times. and in a 71% democratic district. when i ran for re-election, i was redistricted. i was in a 71% democratic district. i had a 90% voting record. my district is more democrat than the state of massachusetts. it was the steel valley of pittsburgh and i stood up and fought for the conservative principles. i didn't do what governor romney did in 1994. i was running the same year he
2:07 pm
ran in 1994. i ran in the tough state of pennsylvania against an incumbent. governor romney lost by almost 20 points. why? because at the end of that campaign, he wouldn't stand up for conservative principles. he ran for ronald reagan, and he said he was going to by to the left when it comes to gay rights, abortion, a whole host of other issues. we want someone when the time gets tough, and it will in this election, we want someone who is going to stand up and fight for the conservative principles, not bail out and not run and not run to the left of ted kennedy. >> but you did say when you endorsed him four years ago, just those words, that he would stand up for conservative principles, senator. >> vis-a-vis john mccain. >> governor? your response? >> well, a lot of things were inaccurate. i'm not going to go through them one by one. but i can tell you this. but i think it's unusual and perhaps understandable that people who spend their life in politics imagine that if you get in politics, that that's all you want to do.
2:08 pm
that if you've been elected to something, you want to get re-elected and re-elected. i went to massachusetts to make a difference. i didn't go there to begin a political career, running time and time again. i made a difference, i put in place the things i wanted to do, i listed out the accomplishments we wanted to pursue in our administration. there were 100 things we wanted to do. those things i pursued aggressively. some we won, some we didn't. run again? that would be about me. i was trying to help get the state in the best shape as i possibly could. left the world of politics, went back into business. now i have the opportunity, i believe, to use the experience i have -- you've got a surprised look on your face. wait. it's still my time. >> are you going to tell people you're not going to run for re-election for president if you win? >> rick? rick? >> it's still my time. >> i'm just asking. >> okay. well -- >> go ahead, governor romney. take 30 seconds there. >> what i'm going to tell you is, this, for me, politics is not a career. for me, my career was being in business and starting a business and making it successful. my life's passion has been my family, my faith, and my country.
2:09 pm
i believe by virtue of the experiences i've had that i'm in a good position to make a contribution to washington. i long for day where instead of having people to go to washington for 20 and 30 years, who get elected and then when they lose office they stay there and make money as lobbyists or connected to businesses. i think it stinks. i think we ought to have people go to washington and serve washington and serve as -- as the people of their -- of their nation, and go home. i'd like to see term limits in washington. >> no -- >> as the president of the united states, as the president of the united states, if i'm elected, of course, i'll fight for a second term. >> speaker gingrich? >> there's a lot of work to be done. >> take 30 seconds here. >> i realize the red light doesn't mean anything to you because you're the front-runner. but -- but can we drop a little bit of the pious baloney? the fact is you ran in '94 and lost. that's why you weren't serving with rick santorum. the fact is you had a very bad re-election rating. you dropped out of office.
2:10 pm
you'd been out of state for something like 200 days preparing to run for president. you didn't have the interlude of citizenship while you thought about what to do. you were running for president while you were governor. you were going all over the country. you were out of state consistently. you promptly re-entered politics. you happened to lose to mccain. as you had lost to kennedy. now you're back running. you've been running consistently for years and years and years. so this idea that suddenly citizen zp showed up in your mind, just level with the american people. you've been running since at least the 1990s. >> governor, please. >> mr. speaker, citizenship has always been on my mind. and i happened to see my dad run for governor when he was 54 years old. he had good advice to me. he said, mitt, never get involved in politics. if you have to win election to pay a mortgage. if you find yourself in a position when you can serve, why you ought to have a responsibility to do so, if you think you can make a difference. he said also, don't get involved in politics if your kids are still young because it may turn their heads. i never thought i'd get involved in politics.
2:11 pm
when i saw ted kennedy running virtually unopposed in 1994, a man who i thought by virtue of the policies of the liberal welfare state had created a permanent underclass in america, i said someone's got to run against him. and i happened to have been wise enough to realize i didn't have a ghost of a chance to beat him. this guy from massachusetts -- republican from massachusetts was not going to beat ted kennedy, and i told my partners in my firm, i'll be back in six months, don't take my chair. and i went in and gave it a real battle and went off it. i was happy that he had to take a mortgage out on his house to ultimately defeat me. and i'm -- i'm very proud of the fact that i have stood up, as a citizen, to battle what i felt it was best for the nation. and we're talking about running for president. i'm in this race because i care about the country. i believe my background and experience -- >> all right. let me bring dr. paul into this because there's a question about who is the true conservative in the race. and governor romney said only nine years ago, during an interview with new england cable news, he said the following, i think people recognize that i'm
2:12 pm
not a partisan republican, that i'm someone who is moderate and my views are progressive. do you believe governor romney now when he says that he is a man of constancy and that he'll stand up for conservative principles? >> you know, i think this whole discussion so far has been very superficial. and i think the question in a way that you ask is superficial in you're talking about character, which is very important, but i think we should deal with the issues as well. i don't see how we can do well against obama if we have any candidate that, you know, endorsed, you know, single-payer systems and t.a.r.p. bailouts and don't challenge the federal reserve's $15 trillion of injection bailing out their friends. i don't see how we can have anybody really compete with obama who doesn't challenge this huge empire we have overseas, and the overseas spending. i mean, this is how nations come down. is they extend themselves too far overseas. that's how the soviets came down. we really have to talk about real cuts. and we haven't gotten around to this yet. so if we want to change things, this is what we have to talk
2:13 pm
about. character is important and motivation is important, our history is important. but i really consider that in the debate format to be less significant than what we really believe in. >> you read my mind, dr. paul. and we're going to get to some of the tough choices not just on politics but on policy. first, governor perry, i do want to ask you flat out, your stake in your campaign going down to south carolina, is governor romney unelectable in your judgment? >> well, i think you have to ask the question of who is it that can beat obama? who is it that can invigorate the tea party? who is it that can take the message of smaller outsider government that's truly going to change places? as i look from here down to rick santorum, i see insiders. individuals who have been the big spending republicans in washington, d.c., and let's be honest with ourselves. i mean the fact of the matter is that obama has thrown gasoline on the fire, but the
2:14 pm
bonfire was borning well before obama got there. it was policies and spechbding both from wall street and from the insiders in washington, d.c., that got us in this problem. and we need a candidate that cannot only draw that stark contrast between themselves, and barack obama, but also stand up and lead the tea party movement back. 2010 was about the tea party standing up and understanding that republicans, big spending republicans had caused as much of this problem as anything, and it was their power that brought together -- that brought washington, d.c., and the house to republican control, and that's the kind of individual that we've got to have to lead this election. >> before i get to governor huntsman, i'd be remiss, governor romney, if i didn't allow you to respond to the quote i read from you nine years ago. what would you say to conservatives so that they will trust that you will stand up for conservative principles? >> they've got my record as governor. that's the great thing of the people here in new hampshire. they see what i did as governor
2:15 pm
of massachusetts. i also had occasion after my last failed attempt to run for president, a learning experience, to sit down and write a book. and i wrote a book and described my view for the country. and people can describe it in differing ways. but my view is that principles that i've learned in business and the principles as governor, frankly, made me more conservative as time has gone on. i've seen a lot of government trying to solve problems and it didn't work. my view is the right course for america is to have someone who understands how the economy works, who will passionately get america back on track. >> all right. we're going to come back to obstacles for the nomination, but let me get to policy, governor hundredsman. this is by all accounts an age of austerity for the country. a jobs crisis, also a spending crisis in washington. i wonder what specifically you would do to say to americans, these are cuts i'm going to make in federal spending, that will cause pain, that will require sacrifice? >> let me say first of all, with respect to governor romney, you know, there are a lot of people
2:16 pm
who are tuning in this morning, and i'm sure they're terribly confused after watching all of this political spin up here. i was criticized last night by governor romney for putting my country first. and i just want to remind the people here in. >> announcer: and throughout the united states that i think -- he criticized me while he was out raising money, for serving my country in china. yes, under a democrat. like my two sons are doing in the united states navy. they're not asking what political affiliation the president is. i want to be very clear with the people here in new hampshire and this country. i will always put my country first, and think that's important. >> all right. well, why don't you give a response, governor romney, and then i'll come back on the austerity question. >> i think we serve our country first by standing for people who believe in conservative principles and do everything in our power to promote an agenda
2:17 pm
that does not include president obama's agenda. i think the decision to go and work for president obama is one which you took. i don't disrespect your decision to do that. i just think it most likely that the person who should represent our party running against president obama is not someone who called him a remarkable leader and went to be his ambassador in china. >> this nation is divided, david. because of attitudes like that. the american people are tired of the partisan division. they have had enough. there is no trust left among the american people in the institutions of power and among the american people and our elected officials. and i say we've had enough, and we have to change our direction in terms of coming together as americans, first and foremost -- >> dr. paul said let's not be superficial, let's talk substance. so, governor huntsman, name three areas where americans will feel real pain in order to balance the budget.
2:18 pm
>> well, i would have to say that i agree with the ryan plan. i think i'm the only one standing up here who has embraced the ryan plan. it's a very aggressive approach to taking about 6.2 -- $6.2 trillion out of the budget over ten years. and it looks at everything. and what i like about it is it says there will be no sacred cows. department of defense won't be a sacred cow. as president of the united states, i'm going to stand up, and i'm going to say, we are where we are, 24% spending, percentage of gdp. we've got to move to 19%. >> three programs that will make americans feel pain, sir. >> well, let me just say on entitlements, across the board,ly tell the upper income category in this country that there will be means testing. there are a lot of people in this nation -- >> social security and medicare? >> absolutely. absolutely. and also, i'm not going to tie department of defense spending to some percentage of gdp. i'm going to tie it to a strategy that protects the american people. and if we think that we can't find efficiencies and cuts in the department of defense budget, then we are crazy. >> senator santorum, same question. three programs that would have to be cut to make americans feel
2:19 pm
pain, to sacrifice if we're going to balance the budget. >> i would agree with governor huntsman on means testing. i talked about that yesterday. we had about 1,200 people there, and i talked about how we have to make sure that we're not going to burden future generations with a social security program that's underfunded. it's underfunded right now. we have to take those who have been success, who are seniors, who have tremendous amount of wealth and we've got to reduce benefits. it makes no sense for folks who are struggling right now to pay their payroll taxes, the biggest tax, tax on labor, makes us uncompetitive, and the idea that someone has to raise those taxes to make labor even more uncompetitive for those people to subsidize high income seniors doesn't make any sense to me. food stamps is another place. you've got block grants to send it back to the states just like i did on welfare reform. the same thing with medicaid. those three programs, including housing programs, block grant them, send them back to the states, require work, and put a time limit. you do those three things, we'll help take these three programs,
2:20 pm
which are now dependency programs which people are continually dependent upon, and you take them into transitional programs to help people move out of poverty. speaker gingrich, on the issue of medicare, when you were on "meet the press" earlier this year, you had talked about what paul lang was talking about as a step too far, which is moving seniors on to a premium support or a voucher program, depending on how you phrase it. as you know, senator santorum thinks that current seniors should be moved of that program into premium support or a voucher program. do you agree with doing it that quickly and making current seniors bear the brunt of that? >> well, the fact is that the ryan lighten bill, which was just introduced recently, actually incorporates allowing people to choose and allows them to stay in traditional medicare with the premium support model or go to new methods. and thing it's a substantial improvement. it allows for a transition in medicare, in a way that makes sense. but, david, you know, i find it fascinating that very, very highly paid washington
2:21 pm
commentators, and washington analysts, love the idea of pain. who's going to be in pain? the duty of the president is to find a way to manage the federal government so the primary pain is on changing the bureaucracy. on theft alone we could save $100 billion a year in medicaid and medicare if the federal government were competent. that's $1 trillion over ten years, and the only people in pain would be crooks. so i think a sound approach is to absolutely improve the government, not punish the american people because of the failure of the political class to have any sense of cleverness. >> governor perry, from facebook, a lot of questions have been submitted. this is from martin montalvo, because we do have extended crisis, but a lot of people are hurting, with more americans on government assistance than ever before, is it un-american for americans to feel relieved when the government helps them? >> well, let me answer the
2:22 pm
question that you asked earlier, what are the three areas that you would make some reductions that people would feel some pain and i would tell it would be those bureaucrats at the department of commerce, and energy, and education that we're going to do away with. >> and that's your final answer? >> you know, the fact of the matter is that americans want to have a job. that's the issue here. and the idea that there are people clamoring for government to come and to give them assistance is just wrong-headed, and that's what we need to be focusing on as a people is how do we create an environment in this country where the entrepreneurs know that they can risk their capital, have a chance to have a return on investment and create the jobs out there so that people can have the dignity to take care of their families. that's what americans are looking for. i've done that for the last 11 years in the state of texas and have the executive governing experience that no one else up here on this stage has. >> all right, i'm going to leave it there. we're going to take a quick break. we're going to come back live from new hampshire with many more questions for the
2:23 pm
candidates and feedback from you. so please participate online at we're coming right back. [ male announcer ] wouldn't it be cool if you took the top down on a crossover? if there were buttons for this? wouldn't it be cool if your car could handle the kids... ♪ ...and the nurburgring? or what if you built a car in tennessee that could change the world? yeah, that would be cool. nissan. innovation for today. innovation for tomorrow. innovation for all. ♪ you feel it working, so you know you're ready for whatever the day brings. compared to ordinary toothpaste, you feel a deeper clean. up to a two times cleaner feeling. new crest complete. feel it working.
2:24 pm
diarrhea, gas or bloating? get ahead of it! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap a day helps defend against digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. hit me! [ female announcer ] live the regular life. phillips'. my high school science teacher made me what i am today. our science teacher helped us build it. ♪ now i'm a geologist at chevron, and i get to help science teachers. it has four servo motors and a wireless microcontroller. over the last three years we've put nearly 100 million dollars into american education. that's thousands of kids learning to love science. ♪ isn't that cool? and that's pretty cool. ♪
2:25 pm
2:26 pm
and we are back on this special edition of "meet the press" from here in new hampshire. we want to get right back to the questions here with our
2:27 pm
candidates. and before the break we were talking about medicare. paul ryan, senator santorum, had a plan where he'd like to move seniors off, give them a voucher or premium support, and then they would take care of their health care from there. there's a lot of debate about that. and i mentioned, you said seniors should be affected right now, 55-plus, have them affected right now, which has been somewhat controversial. you want to respond to that. >> well, you know, i hear this all the time. i've been campaigning around the state. you know, we should have the same kind of health care that members of congress have. well, that's pretty much what the plan is. the members of congress have a premium support model. so does every other federal employee. i mean it works very well. as you know, the federal government has a liability, they put money out there, and then if you want, you have about this thick if you're an employee in washington, d.c., a whole bunch of different plans to choose from, and you have all sorts of options available to you. if you want more expensive plans, you pay more of a
2:28 pm
co-insurance. if you want a less expensive plan, you don't. but here's the fundamental difference between barack obama and everybody up here. it's whether you believe people can be free to make choices or whether you have to make decisions for them. and i believe seniors just like every other american should be free to make the choices in their health care plan that's best for them. >> governor romney, there's a lot of discussion, a lot of discussion this morning on facebook about taxes. and as we talk about taxes, and spending, of course, we talk about economic security and economic growth. there's been a debate in washington and beyond, as you well know, between warren buffett and grover norquist. grover norquist, the anti-tax crusader says no tax increases under any circumstances. warren buffett says, hey, the wealthier in this country can pay more and they should pay more. indeed, balancing the budget is a way for more economic growth down the line. who knows more about the american economy? grover norquist or warren buffett? >> well, who knows more about tax policy? i'm not sure we're going to choose from the two of them. but i can tell you this the right course for america is not
2:29 pm
to raise taxes on americans. i understand that president obama and people of his political persuasion would like to take more money from the american people. and they want to do that so they can continue to grow government. but the answer for america is not to grow government. it is to sh rink government. we've been going over the last 20, 30, 40 years, government keeps growing at a faster rate relative to inflation. we've got to stop the extraordinary spending in this country. that's why i put out a plan that reduces government spending, i cut -- i cut programs, a whole series of programs, by the way the number one cut is obama care. that saves $95 billion a year. just as rick indicated, return to states a whole series of programs, food stamps, housing vouchers, medicaid, and then set how much goes to them. and finally with regard to entitlement, i do not want to change medicare and social security for current retirees. but for younger people coming up, they have to recognize that in the future, higher income people will receive less payments than the premium support program. >> governor huntsman, who knows more about the american economy? you, in answer to that question, you seemed to be a little bit
2:30 pm
uncomfortable with a moment from earlier in this debate cycle when everybody said they would reject even a 10:1 ratio of cuts to new taxes. >> it was a silly format. i mean, it was an important question, and they asked us to raise our hands. i mean for heaven's sake, we didn't get a chance to talk about it. i put a tax reform proposal on the table, endorsed by "the wall street journal," that goes farther than anybody else's on this stage. it calls for what absolutely needs to be done and everybody knows about it. we are so chuck full of loopholes and deductions. it weighs down our tax code to the tune of $1,100,000. you can't continue to compete that way. we've got to phase out loop holes and say so long to corporate welfare and to subsidies because this country can no longer aboard it and we've got to prepare for competition in the 21st century. >> speaker gingrich, if you become president gingrich and the leader of the democrats, harry reid, says he is going to promise to make you a one-term
2:31 pm
president, how would you propose to work with someone like that in order to achieve results in washington? >> i think every president who works with the leader of every opposition knows they're working with somebody who wants to make them a one-term president. i mean that's the american process. i worked with ronald reagan in the early 1980s. tip o'neill was speaker. he wanted to make reagan a one-term president. we had to get one-third of 9 democrats to vote for the reagan tax cuts, and we did. as speaker, i was negotiating with bill clinton. he knew i wanted him to be a one-term president. and we got a lot of things done, including welfare reform, because you have to reach out. i agree with what governor huntsman said earlier. you have to at some point say the country comes first, how are we going to get things done, we'll fight later, let's sit down in a room, let's talk it through, i'll tell you what i need, and i'll tell you what i can't do. you tell me what you need, and you tell me what you can't do. and it sometimes takes 20 or 30 days. but if people of good will, even if they're partisan, come together, talk it out, you know,
2:32 pm
we got welfare reform. first tax cut in 16 years, 4.2% unemployment, and four straight years of a balanced budget with a republican speaker and a democratic president. so it can be done with real leadership. >> anybody else have a point of view about how you actually work with the other side when they've committed to working against you? governor? >> yeah. i mean i was governor of a state that had a slightly democratic leaning house and senate. my legislature was 85% democrat. and i went around at the very beginning of having been elected and met with the speaker of the house and the senate president. the senate president said something i won't forget. he said, mitt, the campaign is over, the people expect us to now govern for them. and we did. we met every week. we rotated in offices. we got to know each other personally. we developed a relationship of respect and rapport. and we had a severe budget crisis. i went to them and said, will
2:33 pm
you give me unilateral power to cut spending without even a vote in the legislature? they had enough confidence in me they decided to do that. i was able to cut the spending on an emergency basis, not just slow down its rate of growth. we can work together. republicans and democrats are able to go across the aisle because we have common -- we really do have areas of common interests. even though they're dramatically different perspectives on how the world works and what's right, we can find common ground. and i have proven in a state that is very democrat that i'm able to work with people, 19 tax cuts. protected charter schools. drove our schools to be number one in the nation. kept them there, rather. that record could work with republicans and democrats who are willing to work to the. >> dr. paul, there's this question of argument versus accomplishment. the question again comes from facebook. hecht joorks hecht
2:34 pm
heath treat writes, i want -- paul treat, rather, i want to know what ron paul's plan of action will be to achieve getting the house and senate to help them do all he's promised. and here's the record, dr. paul. you have actually sponsored 620 measures. only 4 made it to a vote on the house floor, and 1 has been signed into law. >> you know, that demonstrates how much out of touch the u.s. government and the u.s. congress is with the american people. because i'm supporting things that help the american people. that's the disgust that people have, because they keep growing government, whether it's republicans in charge or the democrats in charge. but, as far as working with other groups i think my record is about as good as anybody's because i work on the principle that freedom and the constitution bring people together for different reasons. people use freedom in different ways, like it does, init invites differences in our religious beliefs. economically. we tell people they're allowed to spend their money as they choose. on civil liberties, that's the difference they make. republicans, conservatives aren't all that well known for protecting privacy and personal liberties. when it comes to this spending
2:35 pm
overseas, i can work a coalition. matter of fact, my trillion-dollar proposal to cut spending doesn't immediately deal with social security. it's to try to work our way out of social security. i'm cutting a trillion dollars by attacking overseas spending, and going back to '06 budgets, and i do not believe that you have to have pain. people who have gotten special privileges and bailouts from the government, they may get the pain, but the american people, they get their freedom back and get no income tax, they don't suffer anything. >> senator santorum, here's the reality. two previous presidents. president bush talked about being a uniter and not a divider. president obama talked about transforming washington, and it hasn't worked. washington is polarized. the country is polarized. and the american people are pretty sick of the fact that nothing gets done in washington. specifically, how do you change that? >> well, let me first address congressman paul because the serious issue with congressman paul here is you're right, he's
2:36 pm
paul here is you're right, he's never really passed anything of any importance. and one of the reasons people like congressman paul is his economic plan. he's never been able to accomplish any of that. he has no track record of being able to work to the. he's been out there on the margins, and has really been unsuccessful in working to the with anybody. to do anything. the problem is that what congressman paul can do, as commander in chief, is he can from day one do what he says he wants to do. which is pull all our troops back out of overseas, put them here in america, leave us in a -- in a situation where the world has now created huge amounts of volumes all over the place and have folks like china and iran and others like city straits of hormuz. as i said last night, we wouldn't have even have the fifth fleet there. the problem with congressman paul is all the things republicans like about him they can't accomplish and all the things they worry about he'll do day one. and that's the problem. so what we need to do is have someone who has a plan, and has experience to do all the things republicans and conservatives would like to do -- >> let me get dr. paul to respond.
2:37 pm
>> and then i'd like the opportunity to get back to my answer. >> it's not exactly a simple task to repeal approximately 100 years of us sliding away from our republic, and still running a foreign policy of woodrow wilson, try and make the world safe for democracy. look, we have elections overseas and we don't even accept the elections. no, change in foreign policy is significant. but that's where a nation will come down if they keep doing this. we can't stay in 130 countries, get involved in nation building, we cannot have 900 bases overseas. we have to change policy. what about change in monetary policy? yes, we do. but we've had that for 100 years. and right now we're winning that battle. the american people now agree about 75% of the american people say we ought to audit the federal reserve, find out what they're doing and who are their friends that they're bailing out constantly. >> senator santorum, come back to this point. it's easy to say, boy, i'm going to change the culture in washington. hasn't worked for the past two presidents. >> well, it worked in my case. look at welfare reform.
2:38 pm
a federal entitlement that i remember standing next to daniel patrick moynihan, ted kennedy, who were out there just talking about how this was going to be the end of civilization as we know it. there would be bread lines, the horrific consequences of removing federal income support from basically mothers with children. and we stood up and said, no, that creating dependency and creating that dependency upon federal dollars is more harmful than -- and not believing in people and their ability to work is more harmful, and so we stood up and fought, went out to the american public. bill clinton vetoed this bill twice. we had hard opposition, but i was able to work together, and paint his vision. we made compromises but not on our core principles. the core principles this was going to end the federal program, we were going to require work, we were going to put time limits on welfare. i stuck to those principles, and we were able to compromise on
2:39 pm
some things like transportation funding, day care funding, all in order to get a consensus that pov earth povertyst no a disability and that programs that we need to put in place should help transition people, not make them dependent, and we were able to get 70 votes in the united states senate, including 17 democrats. >> governor huntsman, this question of, is the leader of the democrats promised to make you a one-term president, how would you go about dealing with them in a more effective way than you think the man you serve, president obama, did? >> i think it comes down to one word, david, and i think the one word is trust. when the american people look at the political process play out, they hear all the spinning, and all the doctrineaire language and they still walk away with the belief that they're not being represented in congress. that there's no trust in the executive branch and the simpson/bowles bipartisan proposal lands right on the desk of barack obama and it lands in the garbage can. the first press conference i had when i ran for governor in 2004 was on ethics in government service. i talked about term limits.
2:40 pm
i talked about campaign finance reform. i talked about the role of lobbyists and knew i wouldn't make a lot of friends. i have one member of the legislature who supported me in that run. we won because we had the will of the people. and i believe the next president, if that is to be me, i want to roam around this country, and i want to generate the level of excitement and enthusiasm that i know exists among the american people to bring term limits to congress. to close the revolving doors on members going right on out and becoming lobbyists. we've got to start with a structural problem. there is no trust. >> all right. governor perry, i want to continue on the theme of leadership. >> we need to. >> this is -- as you well know, new hampshire is an independent place. and i wonder where, besides criticizing the previous administration for running up the debt, i wonder where you would buck your party.
2:41 pm
what would you say or do to make republicans uncomfortable? >> i hope i'm making republicans uncomfortable right now by talking about the spending that they've done back in the 2000s when we had control of both parties. >> but aside from that. >> listen. dr. paul says the biggest problem facing this country is our work overseas. i disagree with that. the biggest problem facing this country today is a congress that is out of control with their spending. and we've got to have someone, an outsider, that will walk in, not part of the insider group that you see here, people who have voted for raising the debt limit, people who have been part of the problem that is facing america. i will tell you two things that can occur. that a president can lead the charge on. and it will put term limits into place. one of those is a part-time congress to tell those members of congress, we're going to cut your pay, we're going to cut the amount of time that you spend in washington, d.c., send you back to your district so you can have a job like everybody else in your district has, and live under the laws of which you
2:42 pm
pass, and then a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. you do those two things -- >> but my question -- >> and that will make them uncomfortable. >> you've been telling conservatives a balanced budget amendment is something i'm going to do and i'm going to cut spending. that's going to make them uncomfortable? >> you're darn right. bus there's a bunch of people standing up here who say they're conservatives but their records don't follow up on that. >> i've got to take another break here. we'll come back on this point. we'll return with much more, and of course please share your thoughts with us online via facebook at [ whistle blows ] oh! [ baby crying ] ben harper: ♪ what started as a whisper every day, millions of people choose to do the right thing. ♪ slowly turned into a scream ♪ there's an insurance company that does that, too. liberty mutual insurance.
2:43 pm
responsibility. what's your policy? you could spend as much as $200. olay says challenge that with an instrument that cleanses as effectively as what's sold by skin professionals for a whole lot less. new olay pro x advanced cleaning system. ♪ feel the power my young friend. mmm! [ male announcer ] for unsurpassed fruit and veggie nutrition... v8 v-fusion. could've had a v8. even if you think you can live with your old mattress... ask me how i've never slept better... why not talk to one of the 6 million people who've switched to the most highly recommended bed in america.
2:44 pm
it's not a sealy, a simmons, or a serta... ask me about my tempur-pedic. ask me how i can finally sleep all night. ask me how great my back feels every morning. did you know there's a tempur-pedic for every body? tempur-pedic beds now come insoft...firm...and everything in-between... ask me how i don't wake up anymore when he comes to bed... these are real tempur-pedic owners...ask someone you know...check out twitter, or your friends on facebook... you'll hear it all...unedited! ask me how i wish i had done this sooner. ask me how this is the best investment i've ever made. tempur-pedic brand owners are more satisfied. than owners of any traditional mattress brand... to learn more, or find an authorized retailer near you visit tempur-pedic the most highly recommended bed in america.
2:45 pm
and we are back in new hampshire. i'm happy to be joined now by our local partners for the debate from the new hampshire "union leader,"" political reporter is with us. good to have you here, john, and from whdh-tv in boston, channel 7 in boston, political editor andy pillar. welcome to you, as well. >> governor huntsman, it's winter in new hampshire. a little mild, but it's still winter. home heating oil is nearly $4 a gallon. yet president obama and congress have cut by 25% the program that helps low-income people heat their homes. about 1 million households that were helped last year won't be helped this year.
2:46 pm
is this an example of pain that people should suffer, should this funding be restored? should it be cut more? should this program be eliminated perhaps? this is a practical problem in this area of the country. >> no. we have people in need. we have people suffering. and this is a challenge that we need to address. but i believe we're not going to be able to effectively confront it head on until such time as this nation begins to move more toward greater energy diversity and energy independence. one of the first things i would do as president is i would take a look at that one product distribution bias that always favors one product. and that's oil. and i'd say, if we're going to do with this nation what needs to be done in terms of using a multiplicity of products that we have in such diversity and abundance and get them to the customers, we're going to have to break up that one product distribution monopoly. and i want to do to that oil distribution monopoly what we did to broadcast communication
2:47 pm
in the early 1970s. we blew it apart. we said we need more. we need diverse sources to draw from. we need to service the consumers. i believe if we're going to do what needs to be done from an energy independent standpoint, all products, getting the products to the customer, we've got to disrupt that one product monopoly that does not serve this country well, nor its ooefd consumers. >> congressman paul, how do you feel about -- how do you feel about subsidies in general for specific energy and also more specifically right now, more immediately, low-income program, heating assistance program? is this something that fits in under your view of what government does do or should not do? >> well, subsidies, per se, it's bad economic policy, it's bad moral policy, because it's using government force to transfer money from one group to another. and economically it does a lot of harm. but when it comes to energy, we should, you know, deregulate like others talk about.
2:48 pm
but we need to talk, you know, supply and demand, everybody knows about supply and demand. they talk about oil. if we had more alternative sources we always hope the price also go down. but everybody forgets that there's another 50% of a transaction is the monetary unit. and you don't deal -- very few people talk about the supply and demand of money. and when you create a lot of money, prices go up. so it goes up in the areas where government most gets involved. you know, in education, in medical care, housing. and in energy. so prices go up much faster than any other place, so if you subsidize somebody and you print money to do it, you compound the problem. it's good politics. yeah, i'm going to subsidize you and take care of you, but it's bad economic policy, and it's not a good way to find any answers. >> governor romney, this is such an important topic, because beyond the regional implication, there's also a larger question about the social safety net. you talk all the time about
2:49 pm
opportunity for americans. what about americans left behind? in this age of austerity, what do americans have to learn to live with less of? >> well, what we don't need is to have a federal government saying we're going to solve all the problems of poverty across the entire country. because what it means to be poor in massachusetts is different than montana, mississippi, other places of the country. and that's why these programs, all of these federal programs that are bundled to help people and make sure we have a safety net need to be brought together and sent back to the states. and let states that are closest to the needs of their own people craft the programs that are best able to deal with the needs of those folks. so whether it's food stamps and housing vouchers, they're certainly on the list. but certainly medicaid. home heating oil support. what unfortunately happens is with all the multiplicity of federal programs, you have massive overhead, with government bureaucrats in washington, administering all these programs, very little of the money that's actually needed by those that really need help, those that can't care for
2:50 pm
themselves actually reaches them. these -- the government -- folks in washington keep building program after program, it's time to say, enough of that, let's get the money back to the states the way the constitution intended and let states care for their own people in the way they deal best. >> andy? >> governor romney, i'd like to remind you of something you said in "bay windows," which is gay newspaper in massachusetts in 1994, when you were running against senator kennedy. these are your words, i think the gay community needs more support from the republican party, and i would be a voice in the republican party to foster anti-discrimination efforts. how have you stood up for gay rights? and when have you used your voice to influence republicans on this issue? >> andy, as you know, i don't discriminate. and the appointments that i made when i was governor of massachusetts, a member of my cabinet was gay. i appointed people to the bench regardless of their sexual orientation. made it very clear we should not discriminate in hiring policies, in legal policies.
2:51 pm
at the same time in 1994 i said to the gay community, i do not favor same-sex marriage. i oppose same-sex marriage and that has been my view. but, if people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays, or will in any way try and suggest that people that have different sexual orientation don't have full rights in this country, they won't find that in me. >> when is the last time you stood up and spoke out for increasing gay rights? >> right now. >> senator santorum, would you be a voice for increasing gay rights for the party? >> surprised he's coming to me. what? what was your question? >> would you be a voice for speaking out for gay rights in your party? and if not, why not? >> i would be a voice in speaking out for making sure that every person in america,
2:52 pm
gay or straight, is treated with respect and dignity and has the equality of opportunity. that does not mean that i would agree with certain things that the gay community would like to do to change laws with respect to marriage, with respect to adoption, and things like that. so you can be respectful. this is the beautiful thing about this country. james madison called the first amendment, he called it the perfect remedy. and that is people of all different backgrounds, diversity, opinions, faiths, can come into the public square and can be heard. and can be heard in a way that's respectful of everybody else, but just because you don't agree with someone's desire to change the law doesn't mean you don't like them or you hate them or you want to discriminate against them, but you're trying to promote things that you think are best for society. and i do so, and i think if you watch the town hall meetings that i've been doing all over new hampshire, i do so in a respectful tone, i listen to the other side, i let them make their arguments, and then we do
2:53 pm
so in a very respectful way. you know what? we may not agree. that's why we believe it open to the public to be able to elect members of congress and the senate and the president who support their ideas. >> what if you had a son who came to you and said he was gay? >> i would love him as much as i did the second before he said it. and i would try to do everything i can to be as good a father to him as possible. >> governor perry, we're going to move on. right-to-work, which is mandatory union membership as you know continues to be a major issue in the state of new hampshire. you've spoken about having states pass state laws. what about on the federal level? do you see this as a federal issue? and one that you would promote as president? or -- >> it is a federal issue and it's a federal issue because of the law that was passed that forces the states to make the decision about whether or not they're going to be right-to-work. so, jim demint's legislation, i would support that, of repealing that legislation that forces states to make that decision to be a right-to-work, rather than
2:54 pm
all of this country being right-to-work. listen, i'm not anti-union. i'm pro-job. and the way you promote this country's rehabilitation from the obama administration's attack on job creation is by taxes, and regulation, particularly the regulatory side, and pulling those regulations that have gone forward over the course of the last, since '08, and test them all for, do they create jobs or do they kill jobs? if they kill jobs, you throw them out. that will make more difference in this country from the standpoint, i'm a right-to-work guy. i come from a right-to-work state and i will tell you if new hampshire wants to become the magnet for job creation in the northeast, you pass that right-to-work legislation in this state. >> i'd like to -- i'd like to ask both governor romney quickly, and senator santorum quickly, do -- what positive contributions do labor unions provide in this comprehend? at this point in the 21st century?
2:55 pm
well, the carpenters' union, for instance, trains their workers to be more effective on the job. and when they compete against non-union workers they do that on a fair basis. if that happens that's a positive contribution. let me say this with regards to unions, i agree with governor perry right-to-work legislation makes a lot of sense for new hampshire and for the nation. but also let's not forget the government union and the impact they're having. if we're going to finally pull back the extraordinary political power, government unions in this country, we're going to have to say that people who work for the government, government workers, should have their compensation tied to that which exists in the private sector. people who are government servants, public servants, should not be paid more than the taxpayers who are paying for it. >> governor, very quickly, senator, we'd like to have a hard break. a quick comment on this? >> i will. i signed a pledge that i would support a national right-to-work. when i was, i mentioned this last night, when i was a senator for pennsylvania i didn't vote for it because pennsylvania is not a right-to-work state and i didn't want to vote for a law
2:56 pm
that would change the law in pennsylvania, number one. number two, what can unions do as mitt mentioned, they can do training. they also do a lot in the community. i worked with a lot of labor unions in philadelphia and other places to do a lot of community involvement work, and they try to participate as good members of the community like a business. >> i've got to cut you off. we have a mandatory break. we'll be back with more questions in just a moment. oh yes! intense shadowblast from easy, breezy, beautiful covergirl. yeah, our low prices are even lower. we need to teach her how to walk. she is taking up valuable cart space. aren't you, honey? [ male announcer ] it's our biggest clearance event of the year where our prices are even lower. save money. live better. walmart.
2:57 pm
2:58 pm
we have come to the end of our first hour of this nbc news/facebook debate here in new hampshire. a few nbc stations may be leaving us now. for most of you and everyone watching live on msnbc, and online, please stay tuned. ♪ [ smack! ] [ smack! smack! smack! ] [ male announcer ] your favorite foods fighting you? fight back fast with tums. calcium rich tums goes to work in seconds. nothing works faster.
2:59 pm
♪ tum ta tum tum tums [ female announcer ] nature valley granola bars, rich dark chocolate, toasted oats. perfect combinations of nature's delicious ingredients, from nature valley. ♪ nature valley granola bars, nature at its most delicious.
3:00 pm
and we are back to our final half hour. so much discussion, speaker gingrich, on facebook, in the course of this debate about jobs. and you can understand why. and we talked about spending. we talked about economic growth. it was governor romney who made the point to a young person who approached him that if he were president, and when this person got out of college, he or she would have a job. if president obama has a second term, he or she will not have a job. isn't that the kind of thing that makes people angry with politicians, answers like that? >> well, i don't think that's an easy answer. i think that's a statement of fact.
3:01 pm
you know. but let me take -- let me go back, it's exactly the same question. the long-term answer to $4 heating oil is to open up offshore development of oil and gas, open up federal lines to oil and gas, flood the market as dr. paul said, make supply and demand work for us, not against us. the price will come down. under obama 2011 was the highest price of gasoline in history. it is a direct result of his policies, which kill jobs, raise the price of heating oil and gasoline, weaken the united states, increase our dependence on foreign countries, and weaken our national security in the face of iran trying to close the straits of hormuz. so the right president opening up in a reagan tradition and using massive development of american energy was 3.2% unemployment in north dakota. there's a hint here. you can actually have jobs, lower price heating oil, which by the way means less spending so you get more revenue for federal government from loyalties, less spending on
3:02 pm
subsidy, people are happier all the way around. that's what supply side economics was originally all about in the 1970s. >> governor romney, on those economic questions you blame president obama for the jobs crisis but when you look at the data and a positive trend line he still only gets the blame and none of the credit. how come. >> actually i don't blame him for the recession and the decline. what i blame him for is having it go on so long and going so deep and having a recovery that's been so tepid. businesses i talk to all over the country that would normally be hiring people are not hiring. and i asked them why. and they say because they look at the policies of this administration and they feel they're under attack. when you have an administration that tries to raise taxes and has on businesses, when it puts in place obama care that's going to raise the cost of health care for businesses, when they stack the national labor relations board with labor stooges, which means that the policies relating to labor are now going to change dramatically in a direction they find uncomfortable, when you have obama care that places more mandates on them, when you have
3:03 pm
dodd-frank which makes it harder for community banks to make loans, all these things collectively create a reality of a president who has been anti-investment, anti-jobs, anti-business, and people feel that. and if you want to get this country going again, you have to recognize that the role of government is not just to catch the bad guys, important as that is. it's always to encourage the good guys. >> all right. >> and to return america to a land of opportunity. >> back to john and andy. john, go ahead. >> governor romney, i'm going to stay with you for one moment here talking about regulations. one of your prime new hampshire supporters, senator kelly ayotte, has said, quote, new hampshire should not be the tailpipe for pollutants from out-of-state power plants. many senate republicans attack an epa rule limits air pollution that affects downwind states but she and others, including scott brown, joined with the president
3:04 pm
and senate democrats to block a repeal effort. now, is this an example that's cross-state air pollution rule of fair regulation? something that we in the northeast are very concerned about in terms of pollution? or is this overregulation, job killing overregulation? >> well, i'm not familiar with the specific regulation as it applies to new hampshire. but i do believe that we have a responsibility to keep the air clean, and we have to kind ways to assure that we don't have the pollution of one state overwhelming the ability of another state to have clean air. i know in my state of massachusetts, we received a lot of air from the rest of the country. obviously given the winds coming from the west of the country to the east, and so the responsibility in our state, was to get the emissions from our power plants down. that's one of the reasons why we moved to natural gas. and really, by the way, a discussion about energy and security, getting the cost of gasoline down, the big opportunity here is not just a new oil distribution system but it's natural gas. we have massive new natural gas reserves that have been found in pennsylvania, in north dakota,
3:05 pm
south dakota, texas, natural gas cheap. a fraction of the cost for btu of oil. if we want to help people in new england have not only homes and businesses that emit less pollutants into the air, and therefore would have cleaner air, and also have lower cost of energy, let's build out this natural gas system so that we can take advantage of that new, enormous source of american economic strength. >> speaker gingrich, what exactly is an environmental solutions agency? i think a lot of people might not know or understand that why you want to expand the epa, and set up something that kind of looks like the epa. >> if you look at the epa's record, it is increasingly radical. it's increasingly imperious. it doesn't cooperate, doesn't collaborate and doesn't take into account economics. they went down to find out what it was being cited for and they told them, frankly, we don't know, we can't find the records that led to this citation and we're not exactly sure the reference, but it must be bad or
3:06 pm
we wouldn't have sent it out. in iowa they had a dust regulation under way because they control particulate matter. i do agree on clean air. there are things that they should do that are right. but dust in iowa is an absurdity. and they were worried that the plowing of a cornfield would leave dust to go to another farmer's cornfield. and they were planning to issue a regulation. in arizona they went in on the dust regulation and suggested to them that maybe if they watered down the earth they wouldn't have these dust storms in the middle of the year and people said the reason it's called a desert is there's no water. now, this is an agency out of touch with reality, which i believe is incorrigible and you need a new agency that is practical, has common sense, uses economic factors, and in case of pollution, actually incentivizes change, doesn't just punish it. >> andy? >> governor perry, your party's
3:07 pm
last nominee, john mccain, wrote in "the washington post" in the op-ed about a year ago, his words, i disagree with many of the president's policies, but i believe he is a patriot, sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause. i reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead america or opposed to its founding ideals. agreed? >> i make a very proud statement and a fact that we have a president that is a socialist. i don't think our founding fathers wanted america to be a socialist country. so i disagree with that premise that somehow or another that president obama reflects our founding fathers. he doesn't. he talks about having a more powerful, more centralized, more consuming and costly federal government. i am a tenth amendment-believing governor. i truly believe that we need a president that respects the tenth amendment, that pushes
3:08 pm
back to the states, whether it's how to deliver education, how to deliver health care, how to do our environmental regulations. the states will considerably do a better job than a one side fits all washts,led by this president. >> can i just jump in, senator santorum, governor perry called the president a socialist. i wonder, senator santorum, when you voted for a new prescription drug benefit that did not have a funding mechanism, were you advancing socialism? >> well, i said repeatedly that we should have had a funding mechanism, and it's one of those things that i had a very tough vote, as you know. in that bill, we had health savings accounts. something i'd been fighting for for 15 years to transform the private sector health care system into a more consumer, bottom-up way of doing it. we also had medicare advantage to transform the entire medicare system into -- medicare advantage is basically a premium support type model. >> so is it socialism though? >> i think i'm just answering your question. maybe we're not communicating
3:09 pm
well. but i just talked about medical, the health savings account is an anti-socialistic idea to try to build a bottom-up consumer-based economy. in health care. the same thing with medicare advantage. and we also structured the medicare part "d" benefit to be a premium support model as a way of trying to transition medicare. so there were a lot of good things in that bill. there was one really bad thing. we didn't pay for it. we should have paid for it, and that was a mistake. >> congressman paul, i'm going to say many americans, particularly democrats, believe that health care is a right. in your opinion, what services are all americans entitled to expect to get from government? >> entitlements are not rights. rights mean you have a right -- rights mean you have a right to your life. you have a right to your liberty. and you should have a right to keep the fruits of your labor.
3:10 pm
and this is quite a bit different, but earlier on there was a little discussion here about gay rights. i, in a way, don't like to use those terms, gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, religious rights. there's only one type of right. it's your right to your liberty. and i think this causes divisiveness when we see people in groups because for too long we punish groups, so the answer then, was, let's relieve them by giving them affirmative action. so i think both are wrong, if you think in terms of individuals, and protect every single individual, no, they're not entitled, one group isn't entitled to take something from somebody else. and the basic problem here is, there's a lot of good intention to help poor people. but guess who gets the entitlements in washington? the big guys get. the rich people. they run the entitlements. the military industrial complex, the banking system, those are the entitlements we should be dealing with. >> okay. dr. paul, thanks. our remaining moment, back to
3:11 pm
you, john. >> governor huntsman, andy and i are about to wrap up our debate and as we do, i'd like to ask you as someone who's been here in new hampshire awhile, what does our state not co"live flee or die" mean to you personally and how would it guide you in the white house? >> it is the fulfillment of a citizenry being able to live out the meaning of our founding documents. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. and everywhere i've gone in this great state we've gone 160-plus public events. i feel it, and i sense it, and people take that very seriously. you know what else they take seriously? they take seriously the idea of real leadership. i've heard a lot of obfuscating up here, the blame game, talking about gays, talking about unions, everybody's got something nasty to say. you know what the people of this country are waiting for and the people? they want a leader who is going to unify, who's going to bring us together, because at the end of the day, that's what leadership is all about.
3:12 pm
it's not about taking on different groups and vilifying them for whatever reason. it's about projecting a vision for a more hopeful tomorrow. that's why there is no trust in this country today. and that's why, as president, i'm going to attack that trust deficit just as aggressively as i attack that economic deficit. because with no trust, i can't think of anything more corrosive longer-term for the people of this nation. >> all right. we're going to -- we're going to leave it there. thank you, john, thank you andy, both. we're going to take another quick break here. i'll be back with a final round of questions, including your questions from our "meet the press" facebook page. we're back with our final moments in just a moment. hey, it's me -- water.
3:13 pm
when i think about how lucky i am that i've had a pur water filter remove 99% of lead and microbial cysts... [ sniffs ] and then i think about the water that hasn't. [ whimpers ] i ju...i don't know. it doesn't seem fair. the two trains and a bus rider. the "i'll sleep when it's done" academic. for 80 years, we've been inspired by you. and we've been honored to walk with you to help you get where you want to be. ♪ because your moment is now. let nothing stand in your way.
3:14 pm
learn more at mid grade let nothing stand in your way. dark roast forest fresh full tank brain freeze cake donettes rolling hot dogs bag of ice anti-freeze wash and dry diesel self-serve fix a flat jumper cables 5% cashback right now, get 5% cashback at gas stations. it pays to discover. ask me. if you think even the best bed can only lie there... ask me what it's like... when my tempur-pedic moves... to someone who owns an adjustable version of the most highly recommended bed in america... ask me about my tempur advanced ergo. ask me about having all the right moves. these are real tempur-advanced ergo owners! find one for yourself. check out twitter. try your friends on facebook... see what they have to say...unedited. it goes up... ask me what it's like to get a massage ---any time you want. goes down... ergo...nomics... ergo...nomics... tempur-pedic brand owners are more satisfied than owners of any traditional mattress brand. (in chinese) ask me why i never want to leave my ergo. ask me why i'm glad i didn't wait 'till i was
3:15 pm
too old to enjoy this. start asking real owners. ask me how to make your first move... find out more about the tempur advanced ergo system! call the number on your screen for your free dvd and information kit. to find an authorized dealer near you, visit tempur-pedic. the most highly recommended bed in america. we are back. gentlemen, candidates, we have just a few minutes left. and i'd like to try something, because i do want to get to as much substance and pin you down on views as best i can. i know this can be hard for you, but you are spending a lot of money getting your message out in 30-second increments, based on what i've been watching in
3:16 pm
the hotel room here in new hampshire. so i know you know how to do this. let's try having 30-second answers to these questions. senator santorum, i want to ask you about iran. it's been a big issue in the course of this campaign so far. i wonder why it is, if america lives with a nuclear soviet union, we have come to live with a nuclear north korea, why is it that we cannot live with a nuclear iran? and if we can't, are you prepared to take the country to war to disarm that country? >> they're a theocracy. they're a theocracy that has deeply embedded beliefs that the afterlife is better than this life. president ahmadinejad has repeatedly said the principle virtue of the islamic republic of iran is martyrdom. so when your principle virtue is to die for allah, it's not a deter rent to have a nuclear threat if they would use a nuclear weapon. it is, in fact, an encouragement
3:17 pm
for them to use a nuclear winnipeg, and that's why there's a difference between the soviet union and china and others versus iran. >> what about pakistan? they have nuclear weapons. are you also prepared as president to say they must disarm or else? >> they are not a theocracy and we're very hopeful of maintaining a more secular state than is in place today. but there is a serious threat. and this administration has bungled it about as badly as they can in trying to continue those positive relationships. we've had some real serious problems with the pakistani military. obviously with respect to osama bin laden, and with respect to north waziristan. but you have -- the reason is we oomz have a president who is very weak in that region of the world, is not respected and therefore he's not been able to have that strong hand in working with pakistan that they're used to. >> speaker gingrich, how about tone of this campaign? i was in iowa, i heard you on the stump. you complained bitterly about the super pac, the outside groups that were lodging charges against you, bringing up some
3:18 pm
old issues against you. and now you have a former campaign spokesman who is preparing attacks against governor romney, calling him, quote, a predator for his involvement at the investment company. you agreed with someone who said that governor romney was a liar when he didn't take account for those attacks against you. are you consistent now as you're preparing to launch against governor romney? >> sure. >> how so? >> i'm consistent because i think you ought to have fact-based campaigns. to talk about the records. >> calling him a predator is not over the line? >> well, i think you have to look at the film, which i haven't seen, but if you look at the "new york times" article, i think it was on thursday, you would certainly have to say that bane at times engaged in behavior where they looted a company, leaving behind 1,700 unemployed people. that's "the new york times." that's not me. so i think -- one of the things i've complained about, got four
3:19 pm
pinocchios in "the washington post." now to get four pinocchios in a 30-second ad means there's virtually nothing accurate in 30 seconds. >> speaker, you decry the washington establishment and you just talked about "the new york times" and "the washington post." you have agreed with the characterization that governor romney is a liar. look at him now. do you stand by that claim? >> sure, governor i wish you would calmly and directly state it is your former staff running the pac, it is your millionaire friends giving to the pac, and you know some of the ads aren't true. just say that, straightforward. >> well, of course, it's former staff of mine, and, of course, they're people who support me. they wouldn't be putting money into a pac that supports me if they weren't people who support me. with regards to their ads, i haven't seen them. as you know, under the law i can't direct their ads. >> speaker -- >> hold on a second. i can't direct their ads. if there's anything in them that's wrong, hypothey take it out. i hope everything that's wrong is taken out. but let me tell you this, the ad i saw said that you've been forced out of the speakership. that was correct. it said that -- that you sat down with nancy pelosi and
3:20 pm
argued for a climate change bill. that was correct. it said that you called the -- the ron paul -- paul ryan's plan to provide medicare reform a -- a right wing social engineering plan. it said that -- that as part of an investigation, an ethics investigation, that you had to reimburse some $300,000. those things were all true. if there was something related to abortion that said it was wrong, i hope they pull it out. anything wrong, i'm sopposed to. but you know, this ain't -- this ain't the bean bag. we're going to come into a campaign, we're going to describe the differences between us -- >> all right. >> but i do think the rhetoric, mr. speaker, was a little over the top. >> you think my rhetoric was over the top? but your ads were totally reasonable. >> let me understand -- >> i've taken -- >> mr. speaker, the super pacs that are out there running ads, ron paul's, mine, yours, as you know, that is not my ad. i don't write that ad, i can't tell them -- >> how about this. would you both agree to take
3:21 pm
these super pac ads down? >> but, mr. speaker, i wouldn't call some of the things you've called me in public. i think that's just over the top. >> would you both agree that these super pac ads be taken down? >> david, wait a second. come on. come on. i'm glad finally on this stage weeks later he has said, gee, if they're wrong, they should take them down. they would, of course -- we sent a letter in south carolina warning the stations to just fact check them before they start running them. but i'm taking his advice. you know, we started to run his commercial from 1994, attacking teddy kennedy for running negative ads. you thought, no, that would be wrong. so instead, i agree with him, takes broad shoulders to run, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. when the 27 1/2-minute movie comes out, i hope it's accurate. i can say publicly, i hope that the super pac runs an accurate movie about bane, it will be based on establishment newspapers, like "the washington post," "the wall street journal," "the new york times."
3:22 pm
"barron's," "bloomberg news," and i hope it's totally accurate and that people can watch the 7 27 1/2 minutes of his career at bane and decide for themselves. >> let me ask you, senator santorum. we talk about the role of government, but the presidency is often called the bully pulpit. i wonder as president how you'd use the bully pulpit to try to shape american caught your and value. >> i haven't written a lot of books, i've written one. it was in response to a book written by hillary christian called "it takes a village." i didn't believe with that. i believe it takes a family. that's what i wrote. i believe there's one thing undermining this country and that's the breakdown of the american family. it's undermining our economy. you see rates of poverty among single parent families. you see moms doing heroic things. but it's harder. it's five times harder in the single-parent family. we know there's certain things that work in america. brookings institute came out with a study just a couple of years ago that said if you graduate from high school, if you work, if you're a man, if
3:23 pm
you marry, if you're a woman, if you marry before you have children, you have a 2% chance of being in poverty in america. and to be above the median income, if you do those three things, 77% chance of being above the median income. why isn't the president of the united states or why aren't the leaders in the country talking about that and trying to form late -- not necessarily federal government policies, but local policy and state policy and community policy to help people do those things that we know work and we know are good for society. the president doesn't. in fact, he has required programs not to talk about marriage. not to talk about abstinence, in order to get federal funds. he's working against exactly the things he knows works because he has a secular ideology that is against the tradition of our country and how it works. >> dr. paul, quickly, how would you use the bully pulpit? >> i would continue to do what i'm doing now, preaching the gospel of liberty. i think that the most important ingredients in this country that made us great was our founders understood what liberty meant. and that is what we need. we have deserted that.
3:24 pm
we have drifted a lodge way. it involves our right to our life. right to our liberty. that we ought to be able to keep the fruits of our labor. we ought to understand property rights. we ought to understand contract rights. we ought to understand what sound money is all about and understand what national defense means. that means defending this country. that is the bully pulpit we need. we need to defend liberty. >> all right. defend liberty and -- >> and liberty. >> we're going to take another break here. we'll be back with some closing moments right after this. our science teacher helped us build it. ♪ now i'm a geologist at chevron, and i get to help science teachers. it has four servo motors and a wireless microcontroller. over the last three years we've put nearly 100 million dollars into american education. that's thousands of kids learning to love science. ♪ isn't that cool? and that's pretty cool. ♪
3:25 pm
diarrhea, gas or bloating? get ahead of it! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap a day helps defend against digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. hit me! [ female announcer ] live the regular life. phillips'. your doctor will say get smart about your weight. that's why there's new glucerna hunger smart shakes. they have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly to help minimize blood sugar spikes. [ male announcer ] new glucerna hunger smart. a smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes. than leading regular juice drinks. because less sugar is a better way to fly. ♪ just not literally. capri sun. respect what's in the pouch. ♪ [ female announcer ] if whole grain isn't the first ingredient in your breakfast cereal, what is? now, in every box of general mills big g cereal, there's more whole grain than any other ingredient.
3:26 pm
that's why it's listed first on the side. from honey nut cheerios to cinnamon toast crunch to lucky charms, get more whole grain than any other ingredient... without question. just look for the white check.
3:27 pm
i would like to thank the candidates for joining us. i'd also like to thank our debate partners, facebook, the "new hampshire union leader" and our host in concord, the capital center for the arts. thank you for watching and for participating in this debate online. post-debate analysis will continue ton msnbc. be sure to watch complete coverage of the new hampshire primary returns tuesday night on nbc news, msnbc and online at we'll be back next week from washington. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press."
3:28 pm
is. just two days away from the new hampshire primary. we'll be here for the next hour and a half. i'm here with howard fineman and eugene robinson, a pulitzer prize-winning columnist for "the washington post." gentlemen, right off the bat, fantastic event this morning. in this debate showed his weaknesses. it showed his stance as the nice guy, politician. it was opened to everybody else on the stage and very surgically and strategically by david gregory and the others. >> we'll show the tapes on that,
3:29 pm
but gene? >> my first thoutd was they landed some blows on romney today. the question is whether it's too late. things happened late in new hampshire and it seems like there's an eternity between today, sunday, and tuesday, but is that realistically enough time? >> here it is the one-two punch from santorum and gingrich going at the very motive, attacking his guys or his presentation as a citizen, businessman who occasionally goes into politics. here is the first shot from santorum. >> i went to massachusetts. i made a difference. i put in place the things i wanted to. do i listed out the accomplishments we wanted to pursue in our administration. there were a hundred things we wanted to do. some we won. some we didn't. run again? that would be about me. i was trying to get the state in as best shape


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on